Didn't the anthropogenic global warming skeptics predict this?

Question

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/un-rights-exper.html

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

You know, it's funny because you ask the question like you know the answer is yes. However, neither yourself, no anyone else answering, can provide a cite showing a "climate skeptic" actually predicting that the UN would eventually point out that turning food into fuel might harm poor people around the planet. Most importantly, nobody responding can provide justification why, by pointing this out, the UN is acting in a morally irresponsible or threatening manner.

How many people would you starve to be able to drive to Mickey-D's for another double bacon 1/4-pounder with cheese? Taste good?

Answer 3

If there is already enough food produced then the issue isn't whether or not we should produce biofuels, its how to get enough money and stop enough wars to feed the hungry with what we already produce. Feeding the hungry is a lot more complex than just having the food. It also involves making sure the food shipments don't fall into the hands of groups that steal it, re-sell it and hold onto it for political and genocidal reasons. It includes things like digging wells and teaching good farming practices so the land is better taken care of and can produce more and people can feed themselves.

If we don't start taking care of the environment, there won't be a food surplus or climate to continue to grow the wheat, corn, sugar beets, etc.... and we will ALL be hungry.

Answer 4

The usual "skeptic" deal. One guy, with a particular axe to grind, agrees with you.

Tell me this. If there are no headlines, and nothing changes, is the one guy right and everyone else wrong? Or vice versa? If Brazil ignores him and merrily goes along freeing themselves from importing oil by converting sugar cane to ethanol, is the Brazilian government stupid? Do they all just not understand?

What exactly was the prediction? That there'd be a story like this? A few people have been saying this for a long time. Most experts don't agree.

This guys' job is providing food to poor people. A noble cause, but not one that enables him to see all the sides of the issue objectively. Other people think that the damage to agriculture from global warming will make this food problem seem utterly trivial.

Chocolahoma - The general view from objective experts is that we need to press ahead strongly with nuclear, solar, and wind. And also biofuels, particularly in the transitional period. But there are always "skeptics" about anything.

Answer 5

some where i read that the earth is running out of the resources. very fine . when the resources are over, then there will be no fossil fuel/ coal to pollute the earth.
secondly very few people know and understand the scientific data. they just get caried away by media TV and print. it is fashion now a days to talk about the GW / GHE
thirdly more heat means more water evaporating from sea and rivers. and more rain which will leach out the Carbon dioxide. so where is the case of GW or green house effect?
do not misinter prit- me i am post graduate in Sc with lots of interest in Sc.
they have thrown a stone of GW in water now you keep counting the waves.

Answer 6

No, they didn't. This story has nothing to do with global warming skepticism.

In fact, I predicted this, and I'm not an AGW skeptic. We shouldn't rely too heavily on biofuels because they increase the price and reduce the availability of food crops. I've been saying this for months.

Once again, your logic is flawed.

Answer 7

I just wish there was a workable fuel alternative that didn't set off some special interest group or another.

We can't build nuke plants

We can't go get the oil we need from our own resources

We don't want windfarms messing up our view

Coal's taboo

We can't cut down the forests and burn them...

Does someone have an option that we "can" do?
(With currently available technology...)

Answer 8

The drawbacks of biofuels has nothing to do with being skeptical of GW except perhaps GW skeptics being skeptical of any "environmental" cause in general.